Two GMO Questions, One Big Muddle

We've been discussing genetically modified foods like it's going out of style here on change.org's sustainable food blog.

There is, indeed, much to discuss; there are many threads to the conversation, which, when not teased apart, can lead to a muddled confusion about what we are all actually discussing.

Critics of GM foods tend to focus on two important concerns: the uncertain safety of the crops and the intellectual property (IP) rights of the companies creating them. So these are the big questions: (1) are GM foods safe? And (2) will companies maintain a financial stranglehold over the users and would-be researchers of GM seeds?

These questions are closely related, as the safety of these organisms generally cannot be properly studied because IP restrictions allow companies to restrict scientists' ability to publish independent research on these crops, according to the Scientific American. (Hmm, do you think we might be getting a hint on the answer to question 2?)

Though these questions are closely related, however, an honest debate on the topic requires that we distinguish between the issues raised by each. People with an objection based on one of these two arguments are in danger of developing a general, free-floating distaste for the subject, effectively closing off discussion about the other point. For example:

• Jim: What do you think about GM crops, Martha?
• Martha: They're the devil's spawn!
• Jim: Why do you think so?
• Martha: Because Monsanto is going to own the world eventually. Let's just hope they're benevolent overlords.
• Jim: But what if we had GM crops that were in the public domain so that anyone could use them freely?
• Martha: When pigs fly, Jim. This is corporate America we're talking about.
• Jim: Come on, humor me. If we took Monsanto out of the equation, don't you think GM crops would be a good idea to think about?
• Martha: GMOs just suck.
• Jim: Do you think they're unsafe?
• Martha: What's wrong with Mother Nature, anyway?

Martha has dug in her heels and can't free her feet in time to do the nimble side-step needed to enter a new portion of the conversation.

For an example of some good nimble stepping, check out the video below of Michael Pollan discussing GMOs with The Long Now Foundation, in which he says "if we had open-source genetic engineering, if we had genetic engineering that was really being applied to making the system more sustainable rather than more brittle -- which is essentially what it's doing -- I'm open to learning about it" (quote starts at 3:28).

This is not to say we all must share this opinion, but distinguishing between the various questions involved in this discussion will help us figure out what our opinions really are.

Photo courtesy of Orin Zebest via flickr